UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL …

[Pages:87]Case: 19-1922 Document: 17-1 Page: 1 Filed: 08/15/2019

19-1922 (LEAD), -1923, -1925, -1926 (MEMBER CASES)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

UNILOC 2017 LLC, UNILOC USA, INC., AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee,

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Intervenor-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Case No. 3:18-cv-00360-WHA before Judge William H. Alsup

OPENING BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

Aaron S. Jacobs Prince Lobel Tye LLP One International Place, Suite 3700 Boston, MA 02110 (617) 456-8000 ajacobs@

August 15, 2019

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Case: 19-1922 Document: 17-1 Page: 2 Filed: 08/15/2019

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4, counsel of record for Plaintiff-

Appellants Uniloc 2017 LLC, Uniloc USA, Inc., and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.

(collectively "Uniloc") certifies as follows:

1. The full name of every party represented by us is:

Uniloc 2017 LLC.

Uniloc USA, Inc.

Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.

2. The names of the real parties in interest represented by us are:

Uniloc 2017 LLC.

3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10

percent or more of the stock of the parties represented by us are:

Uniloc 2017 LLC:

Uniloc Corporation Pt. Ltd.

Uniloc USA, Inc.

None.

Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. CF Uniloc Holdings LLC.

4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that

appeared for the parties represented by us in the trial court, or are expected to

appear in this Court, are:

i

Case: 19-1922 Document: 17-1 Page: 3 Filed: 08/15/2019

Prince Lobel Tye LLP:

Dean Bostock Michael Ercolini James J. Foster Kevin Gannon

Robert R. Gilman Paul J. Hayes Aaron S. Jacobs Daniel McGonagle

Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC:

Edward R. Nelson III Shawn Latchford

Anthony Vecchione

5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by this Court's decision in the pending appeal:

None.

ii

Case: 19-1922 Document: 17-1 Page: 4 Filed: 08/15/2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... vi STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .....................................................................1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................2 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................4 STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................5 STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................17 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................20 STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................21 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................22 I. The district court made a mistake of law by balancing Uniloc and the

third-parties' interests in their trade secrets against the public's supposed interest in the contents of those trade secrets, rather than against the public's interest in the accountability of the court. .....................22 A. Documents filed with courts are presumed to be publicly

accessible so the public may hold the courts accountable for their decisions......................................................................................23 B. The district court focused on the public's supposed interest in the substance of the documents, rather than whether the information to be disclosed was necessary to understand the court's decision....................................................................................24

iii

Case: 19-1922 Document: 17-1 Page: 5 Filed: 08/15/2019

C. The to-be-unsealed information is irrelevant to understanding the district court's reasoning. ..............................................................26

II. The district court abused its discretion by refusing to seal or redact discrete portions of a limited subset of documents which contain Uniloc and many third-parties' invaluable and fiercely protected trade secrets.............................................................................................................28

A. The presumption of public access to court documents is rebuttable, including specifically where public access would disclose valuable trade secrets.............................................................28

B. Sealable trade secrets include competitive business information, such as financial records, royalty rates and licensing information. .........................................................................................32

C. The district court ignored precedent and abused its discretion in ordering disclosure of Uniloc and third-parties' trade secrets. ...........37

1. Exhibit A: Conformed Revenue Sharing and Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement. ..................................................38

2. Exhibit C: Revenue Sharing and Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement .................................................................42

3. Exhibits D and E: Deposition transcripts..................................42

4. Exhibit G: Uniloc Luxembourg and Uniloc USA's Disclosure Schedules. ...............................................................43

5. Exhibit P: License Agreement between Uniloc 2017 LLC and Uniloc Licensing USA .......................................................43

6. Exhibit S: Note Purchase and Security Agreement between Uniloc 2017 and CF Uniloc Holdings. .......................44

7. Exhibit DD: Settlement and License Agreement between Microsoft and Uniloc. ...............................................................44

8. Exhibit GG: Heads of Agreement between Fortress and Uniloc's CEO. ...........................................................................45 iv

Case: 19-1922 Document: 17-1 Page: 6 Filed: 08/15/2019

9. Order on Motion to Dismiss and Join Party. ............................45 10. The third-parties' declarations in support of motion for

reconsideration. .........................................................................46 11. The parties' memoranda. ..........................................................46 12. The parties' declarations. ..........................................................47 III. The district court below improperly ignored this Court's ruling in Apple v. Samsung...........................................................................................48 A. The district court made an obvious mistake of fact in attempting to distinguish Apple v. Samsung..........................................................54 B. The district court made a mistake of law in focusing on the public's supposed interest in the substance of the documents, rather than in monitoring the court's rulings. .....................................55 C. The district court made a mistake of law in refusing to recognize Uniloc and many third-parties' interests in confidentiality. .....................................................................................56 D. The outcome in this case should be the same as in Apple v. Samsung. ..............................................................................................56 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................57

v

Case: 19-1922 Document: 17-1 Page: 7 Filed: 08/15/2019

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Abbvie Inc. v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,

No. 17-cv-1815-EMC (July 11, 2017) .................................................................34 Am. Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.,

828 F.2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ..............................................................................30 Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,

658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) ..............................................................................29 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,

727 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... passim Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,

No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 3283478 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012).......................................... 35, 50, 54 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 4933287 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012) ......................................................33 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 5988570 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2012)............................................. passim Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 16-cv-00923-BLF, 2018 WL 2010622 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018) ............................................. passim Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257 (1979) .............................................................................................29 Autodesk, Inc. v. Alter, No. 3:16-cv-04722-WHO (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2018)...........................................35 Autodesk, Inc. v. Alter, No. 3:16-cv-04722-WHO (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017) ...........................................35 Bluestone Innovations LLC v. Nichia Corp., No. 3:12-cv-00059-SI (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) ................................................35 Broadband iTV, Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., No. 17-cv-06647-SK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2017)..................................................49

vi

Case: 19-1922 Document: 17-1 Page: 8 Filed: 08/15/2019

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................24

ChriMar Sys. Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., No. 4:13-cv-01300-JSW (Aug. 12, 2016) ............................................................35

Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. C 12-1971 CW, 2014 WL 6986068 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014) .....................................................36

Dodocase VR, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC, No. 17-cv-07088, 2018 WL 5619799 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2018) .....................................................35

Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................22

EEOC v. Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 168 (9th Cir.1990) .................................................................................27

F5 Networks, Inc. v. Radware, Inc., No. 17-cv-03166-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018).................................................49

Finjan v. Blue Coat Sys., LLC, No. 5:15-cv-03295-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2017) .............................................34

Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 17-cv-05659-WHA (TSH) (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2019).............................. 34, 35

Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 17-cv-05659-WHA (TSH) (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2019) ........................... 34, 49

Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2019) ..........................................36

Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 14-CV-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 7911365 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016).............................................. 40, 46

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 21, 24, 27, 41

Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, No. 18-481, __ U.S. __, 2019 WL 2570624 (U.S. June 24, 2019) ..........................................31

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596 (1982) .............................................................................................23

vii

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download